MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624689822 · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.370

On Continuous Queries in Stream Processing

2017· article· en· W2624689822 on OpenAlexafffund
K. Vidyasankar

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia Computer Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Database Systems and Queries
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceCorrectnessTupleWorkflowStream processingSequence (biology)DatabaseDistributed computingProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: Stream processing is about processing continuous streams of data by programs in a workflow. Continuous execution is discretized by grouping input stream tuples into batches and using one batch at a time for the execution of programs. The programs may generate stream data which may be input to subsequent programs in the workflow. They may also read as well as write some data in persistent store. Continuous queries are processed in the workflow. A continuous query (CQ) consists of a sequence of one time queries. There is a general agreement that each CQ normally spans over several batches of stream inputs. Apart from this, different notions of CQs exist in the literature, their one time queries ranging from just transactions (that is, single executions of programs) to composite transactions. In this paper, we look at how CQs can be defined generically and propose a correctness criterion for concurrent executions of CQs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0080.020
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia Computer ScienceSame topicAdvanced Database Systems and QueriesFrench-language works237,207